Gurganous v. Camp Manufacturing Co.
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the CourtEeogdeN, J.
Was the plaintiff engaged in the operation of a logging road at the time of his injury?
Eecognizing that the risk and hazard of railroad operations were of such imminently dangerous character, the liberal and enlightened thought of the State undertook to protect and safeguard workmen who, in the pursuit of their daily bread, were constantly subjected to such hazards. The first step toward such liberalization was taken by the courts, and thereafter the law-making body began to extend it further by statute. Consequently, subsequent to 1897 an employee of any railroad company, operating in this…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Hornthal v. . HowcottSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1911
- Twiddy v. Dare Lumber Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1911
- Nicholson v. RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1905
- Stewart v. Blackwood Lumber Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1927
- Williams v. Kinston Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1918
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Potter v. National Supply Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1949
- Powell v. . Lumber Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1915
- Styron v. Loman-Garrett Supply CompanyCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1969